Talk:Mass Effect Series
Organization I believe that this article should be organized thusly: *Games **Main trilogy (ME, ME2, ME3) **Other games (Galaxy) *Other media **Books ***three books here **Comics ***The comics **Film ***ME film While it's nice to have things in a chronological order, that would be a little overwhelming to someone not familiar with the series. If people are interested in a timeline of events, they'll just visit the timeline page itself. Yea or Nay? Dammej 20:54, June 25, 2010 (UTC) :The way I have it right now is in release date order, but if you want things in chronological order then it would be Revelation, Mass Effect, Ascension, Incursion, Redemption, Galaxy, Mass Effect 2, Retribution. (I think that is the order). The other comic series and the film can be seperate becuase we have little knowledge of the second comic series, and the film deserves a seperate section. Lancer1289 20:59, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ::That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Just check the list that I have above. My proposal has the article organized in terms of, for lack of a better word, "importance". People know Mass Effect because of the games in the main trilogy, so that should come first. Then after that, we talk about the books, comics, and film. Dammej 21:03, June 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Well then I misunderstood what you said, i think my head is still ringing. Anyway I think that setup would be fine. However I think that we just have a games heading rather than sperating the games. I'll make some changes. Lancer1289 21:07, June 25, 2010 (UTC) Anything Else? After looking at this article again, I feel that we have said all that can be said on this page without giving a full plot summary, which belongs on the various pages. So does anyone else see anything that can be added to this article? If not, then I'll move this into the mainspace, and get the links up, in a week. Lancer1289 06:14, July 17, 2010 (UTC) :Needs pictures. Maybe box arts/covers down the right hand side? JakePT 06:36, July 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Done anything else? Lancer1289 18:31, July 17, 2010 (UTC) Delete Proposal Well for many issues, the man one here is redundency. Becuase information in this article, which I probably put the most time into, just throwing that one out there, can be easily covered elsewhere, and there are some things that can't be put into this article that probably need to be mentioned in others. Examples are in the Books article which has mentions about The Art of Mass Effect books and the Collectors' Edition Guide. This article just does seem redundent when looking at the Books article and the proposed comics article as those can be in much more detail than they can be here. Lancer1289 21:37, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Interesting life cycle this article's had. I suppose I support deletion. The sidebar would have to linked to the Series category then, wouldn't it? -- Commdor (Talk) 21:42, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :::I vote keep. It's much preferable to just have one big series article though it should probably be renamed Mass Effect (series) and the Mass Effect should be renamed Mass Effect (game). I am of the opinion that the Books article should be the one to go. Bastian964 21:44, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :::The art books don't really need to be mentioned in either of these as I said in the Comics and Books projects page. Bastian964 21:54, July 23, 2010 (UTC) So, here's my thinking. This page is the very definition of redundancy. What is it? It's a blurb about the situation at the beginning of the first game, followed by brief little blurbs about the games and some of the books and comics, with some pictures, all interspersed with needless and numerous spoiler tags. Now, let's ask two questions: 1) What content on this page is unique? What on this page can only be found on this page? I can't see anything that qualifies. 2) What unique function does this page fill? What does this page do that is not already done in at least two other places? After all, we already have a series template, and we already have a series menu on the sidebar. All this does that those don't do is show pretty pictures. Although, in fairness, the sidebar doesn't mention the film, though that is a simple matter to fix. I can't even see the reason this page was created. Wikipedia was used as a justification. The reason Wikipedia has a page like this is because they don't go into excruciating detail on all this stuff elsewhere. We do. This page does nothing unique, and contains nothing unique. What's even worse- it doesn't even cover all the info of pages that it seems intended to replace! It's redundant, impractical (as most affected pages already contain the series footer, negating the need for this) and (and I mean no offense to those who created it) seems poorly planned and executed, likely as a result of having been the work of four individuals, with no effort made to solicit other opinions, as has been done with far more trivial matters such as changing the appearance of enemies info boxes. Needless to say, I wholeheartedly vote to delete. SpartHawg948 22:22, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Changed my mind, I'm all for both articles being deleted. Bastian964 02:21, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :I vote for deletion.JakePT 02:29, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::So the page got moved out of the project forum and promptly put up for deletion. Interesting. :) I was pretty ambivalent about its existence, but the arguments that SpartHawg puts forth are quite compelling. I vote for deletion. -- Dammej (talk) 05:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Commence primary ignition. I vote for explod..... er, I mean deletion. :) GrandMoffVixen 05:51, July 26, 2010 (UTC) :Hooray! Nothing like a good Star Wars reference! :) SpartHawg948 05:56, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Well after the voting period, this article is 8-0 in favor of deletion. So one article with one bery interesting life cycle. Lancer1289 19:39, August 1, 2010 (UTC)